"All the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and . . . the State should be abolished." —Benjamin Tucker

"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." —James Madison

"Fat chance." —Sheldon Richman

Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution

The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

I have exchanged emails with Mark Skousen, and here's what he tells me:

Jim Davidson misstated his position.

He does not believe people who disagree should seriously fight it out.

He invited the offended vet, an ex-Marine, to argue with Doug Casey not at a FreedomFest but at a Blanchard Conference.

Mark also playfully invited them to Indian arm wrestle.

Doug did not win; it was a draw.

Davidson asked to speak at FreedomFest; Mark did not approach him.

The quote from an email that Mark sent Davidson is taken out of context.

On the quote, Mark's point makes sense. The quote says nothing about fighting: “The vet was expressing outrage by [sic] Doug in his insensitive comments about veterans, and that’s all. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

My apologies to Mark. Unless new revelations arise, I am through with this.

It is odd that I'm accused of starting a fistfight when my entire purpose is to complain of a wrestling match.

I have reported my more recent concern about the wrestling match and Skousen's most recent invitation that I speak at his event next month. In particular, he wrote to say that he felt a matter of honor was at stake, and that of course if I were to say anything offensive to anyone in the audience at his event, he'd do the same to me.

This seems perfectly consistent with my report from 2004, "Later, Skousen indicated that he felt Doug had to pay a price for offending members of the audience on Friday." I don't think that people who speak at events should have to be physically abused by people in the audience who disagree.

Yesterday, Doug Casey forwarded some comments from Mark Skousen indicating that Skousen is upset with me for reporting on this matter. In particular, Skousen included a photo of himself as an attachment with the caption "Mark Skousen itching to beat someone up." There was also a purloined publicity photo of me which Skousen used without permission, and a stolen cartoon of a professor being beaten up at a blackboard with the caption "You want proof? I'll give you proof."

So, I think Skousen is clearly an unstable person, authoritarian in the extreme, and that he is itching to beat me in particular up. I'm amused that there seems to be some sort of issue with Sheldon Richman (whose work at FEE I have supported with substantial financial contributions he seems not to recall).

Sheldon - what's up? Am I supposed to meekly consent to be beaten up by Skousen's audience members? Or should I so my part with confrontation of coercion (or deviation) with visible protest and rejection? I have chosen to object.

I object to Mark Skousen's claim to be a libertarian when he behaves like an authoritarian. I object to his assertion that he should arrange for members of Doug's audience to wrestle Doug (who was, did anyone mention, suffering from injuries sustained in falling from a horse at high speed during a polo match) over comments Doug made.

Skousen says if I cannot stand the heat, I should get out of the kitchen. So, I have again rejected his invitation to speak.

Obviously, with the Campaign for Liberty hosting their regional event at Skousen's conference, he stands to reap substantial profit from his conference. But he won't get a dime from me.

Jim, if we've met and I have forgotten that, you have my apologies. I did not know you were a FEE contributor. I thank you for that.

There is no "issue" with me. I passed along the information on Roderick's site, with comment unfavorable to Mark. I then, alas belatedly, contacted Mark, who gave a different, innocuous version of the events. Mark says you distorted his words and that he does not believe people should be beaten up for offending others. He condemned such a view as unlibertarian.

I was not there. I cannot confirm what happened. What else can I do but report Mark's side?

Clearly that's not true, Rod. Skousen sent them to Doug Casey, demanding that he "clear this up." Doug wrote to me in response to Skousen's diatribe, "It's unclear to me what record he wants me to set straight."

So, if Skousen isn't itching to beat anyone up, why did he send a photo of himself to Doug with that caption?

The Center for a Stateless Society

Recognize

I am a Palestinian.

HT: Roderick Long

Anticopyright

Unless otherwise noted, to the extent possible under law, Sheldon Richman has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to all original content on the Free Association blog, through the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This work is published from: United States.

Markets Not Capitalism

What is left-libertarianism?

End the Siege of Gaza!

Handala by Naji Al Ali

“Logic and ethics are fundamentally the same, they are no more than duty to oneself.”